ACC presidents have reviewed an altered revenue structure that would resolve the disputes with FSU & Clemson and keep them in the league, sources tell @YahooSports.

Nothing is imminent and it is unclear if there is enough support to approve the proposal.https://t.co/96qeXHdYyu

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) September 18, 2024

Quote:

---

Details around the new revenue structure remain murky, but leaders have reviewed a plan to create a separate pot of revenue to be divided based on media value metrics. This separate distribution would be specifically tied to a school's television viewership ratings for football and potentially basketball.

---

I question what the definition of media value metrics is, but honestly, I think Cal might do okay or average here. They won't have Florida State's or Clemson's draw, but they do draw better than several schools like Wake Forest, Duke, Boston College (though this year they might do well),Virginia, etc. And, the OOC game with UCLA will represent a good TV draw, and the potential ESPN showing the night games nationally would most likely keep Cal to be at least average to above average in the ratings.

I also wonder, if any new money distribution agreement would come with revisions to the financial agreements with Cal and Stanford.

That makes sense if ESPN is in negotiations. If they decide they want to keep a strong ACC, which I believe they do (their only West Coast teams!), then they can put an extra pot of money into the kitty for that - say add an additional $25 million per year over and above what would otherwise be part of the extension. That extra 2 or three million per teams seems like a good way to deal with that. They already have the ability to get the lions share of the funds if they go through the playoff.

The critical issue is getting more than one team into the playoffs. Two or three (when it expands to 16 shortly) would be critical. But also - guess who found out they have nowhere to go, so go back to the table. I mean - really - 0-3 and Cal being touted as the FSU killer this week has to have some level of impact. Plus losing in the courts.

Or it could just be a trial balloon to see what the reaction is from their fanbases.

i think this makes sense. They don't really want to open a can of worm too much. While they are milking the ACC due to a lengthy contract signed years ago, they also don't want them to win a court case and go bottoms up (in which cause FSU and Clemson, should they choose the big 10, means that ESPN loses all of those games). In addition, if Miami, Lousivlle bolts for the B12, that also means ESPN loses 1/2 of those contents due to the B12's grant of right. It's in their best interest to keep the ACC together.

I just hate the idea that Knowlton is sitting in those meetings on our behalf.

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

I just hate the idea that Knowlton is sitting in those meetings on our behalf.

---

More reason why Lyons should've fired JK as soon as he was appointed Chancellor. No one wants Knowlton sitting in on those meetings. Then again, Knowlton probably isn't even there, anyway. He probably doesn't even know about the meetings.

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

I just hate the idea that Knowlton is sitting in those meetings on our behalf.

---

Don't kid yourself, Knowlton is in Colorado working in his garden.

wait, ACC teams may call kiss and make-up? Does that mean 100 less threads a week started by '49?

wifeisafurd said:

---

wait, ACC teams may call kiss and make-up? Does that mean 100 less threads a week started by '49?

---

Don't get my hopes up.

This part is the key. From the Dellenger article:

Quote:

---

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league's grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

---

BearSD said:

---

This part is the key. From the Dellenger article:

Quote:

---

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league's grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

---

---

I agree with that. That is HUGE if it gets shortened to 2030. That would coeincide with a Big 10 and a Big 12 re-negotiation. The big 12 troll farm on reddit and twitter has every convinced that ACC will fall apart and they will have the pick of the litter. If the GoR gets shortened, this will combat that significantly.

Who is to say that the leftovers from the ACC cannot do the poaching at that point? If we don't get to the Big 10, then we pick off Utah, Arizona State, and some other valuable Big 12 properties. It might be more desirable because we can stick with the academic elites and have a chance to win this league once in a while (long shot, but better shot than winning the Big 10)

All the more important to have good leadership at the ACC conference level and also our school AD level to help us navigate these choppy waters ahead.

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

BearSD said:

---

This part is the key. From the Dellenger article:

Quote:

---

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league's grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

---

---

I agree with that. That is HUGE if it gets shortened to 2030. That would coeincide with a Big 10 and a Big 12 re-negotiation. The big 12 troll farm on reddit and twitter has every convinced that ACC will fall apart and they will have the pick of the litter. If the GoR gets shortened, this will combat that significantly.

Who is to say that the leftovers from the ACC cannot do the poaching at that point? If we don't get to the Big 10, then we pick off Utah, Arizona State, and some other valuable Big 12 properties. It might be more desirable because we can stick with the academic elites and have a chance to win this league once in a while (long shot, but better shot than winning the Big 10)

All the more important to have good leadership at the ACC conference level and also our school AD level to help us navigate these choppy waters ahead.

---

This IMO is the key to the deal. The extra money of course helps, but the presumed new deal would end when the B1G and Big 12 does as well. If major realignment is happening (I believe it is) then you want to be able to move without having the GOR hanging around your neck.

ESPN and the conferences also would like to keep GORs as part of any ongoing contracts. While it seems that the GOR may be "iron clad" one never knows how the courts will decide to interpret things. And it costs everybody money to pursue legal outcomes. I do not think ESPN wants this to end up in court.

A negotiated agreement ending the lawsuit is in everyones self interest here. I expect it is likely to occur. Maybe not in this current form but something similar. Compromise makes sense for all.

6956bear said:

---

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

BearSD said:

---

This part is the key. From the Dellenger article:

Quote:

---

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league's grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

---

---

I agree with that. That is HUGE if it gets shortened to 2030. That would coeincide with a Big 10 and a Big 12 re-negotiation. The big 12 troll farm on reddit and twitter has every convinced that ACC will fall apart and they will have the pick of the litter. If the GoR gets shortened, this will combat that significantly.

Who is to say that the leftovers from the ACC cannot do the poaching at that point? If we don't get to the Big 10, then we pick off Utah, Arizona State, and some other valuable Big 12 properties. It might be more desirable because we can stick with the academic elites and have a chance to win this league once in a while (long shot, but better shot than winning the Big 10)

All the more important to have good leadership at the ACC conference level and also our school AD level to help us navigate these choppy waters ahead.

---

This IMO is the key to the deal. The extra money of course helps, but the presumed new deal would end when the B1G and Big 12 does as well. If major realignment is happening (I believe it is) then you want to be able to move with having the GOR hanging around your neck.

ESPN and the conferences also would like to keep GORs as part of any ongoing contracts. While it seems that the GOR may be "iron clad" one never knows how the courts will decide to interpret things. And it costs everybody money to pursue legal outcomes. I do not think ESPN wants this to end up in court.

A negotiated agreement ending the lawsuit is in everyones self interest here. I expect it is likely to occur. Maybe not in this current form but something similar. Compromise makes sense for all.

---

So FSU and Clemson will sign a new GORs and two years from now sue to get out of it and the ACC will cave? What makes this more bonding than the last one?

calumnus said:

---

6956bear said:

---

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

BearSD said:

---

This part is the key. From the Dellenger article:

Quote:

---

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league's grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

---

---

I agree with that. That is HUGE if it gets shortened to 2030. That would coeincide with a Big 10 and a Big 12 re-negotiation. The big 12 troll farm on reddit and twitter has every convinced that ACC will fall apart and they will have the pick of the litter. If the GoR gets shortened, this will combat that significantly.

Who is to say that the leftovers from the ACC cannot do the poaching at that point? If we don't get to the Big 10, then we pick off Utah, Arizona State, and some other valuable Big 12 properties. It might be more desirable because we can stick with the academic elites and have a chance to win this league once in a while (long shot, but better shot than winning the Big 10)

All the more important to have good leadership at the ACC conference level and also our school AD level to help us navigate these choppy waters ahead.

---

This IMO is the key to the deal. The extra money of course helps, but the presumed new deal would end when the B1G and Big 12 does as well. If major realignment is happening (I believe it is) then you want to be able to move with having the GOR hanging around your neck.

ESPN and the conferences also would like to keep GORs as part of any ongoing contracts. While it seems that the GOR may be "iron clad" one never knows how the courts will decide to interpret things. And it costs everybody money to pursue legal outcomes. I do not think ESPN wants this to end up in court.

A negotiated agreement ending the lawsuit is in everyones self interest here. I expect it is likely to occur. Maybe not in this current form but something similar. Compromise makes sense for all.

---

So FSU and Clemson will sign a new GORs and two years from now sue to get out of it and the ACC will cave? What makes this more bonding than the last one?

---

What may very well be driving this is what either the B1G or SEC is willing to give either FSU or Clemson if they become available. The B1G gave UO and UW partial shares. There is a very large cost to litigate this for Clemson/FSU and the ACC. And any court settlement likely is 2 years away or longer. The SEC does not need FSU or Clemson. The recent additions make that league the best. Look at the current rankings.

So take the money that could be equal to whatever any other conference would pay and avoid the lawsuits which they could very easily lose. Be available when the next major realignment occurs.

If ESPN agrees to extend the current deal then FSU/Clemson are possibly stuck til 2036. Any negotiation suggests that ESPN is considering strongly extending the agreement. So if you are Clemson and FSU do you take a new deal that could increase their shares to something similar to what UO and UW are getting and what is likley to be offered to you if you can leave the ACC? Or do you stay and fight in court. Possibly lose and then have to wait til 2036 to leave the ACC.

A new agreement to 2030 is a good deal for them. And it allows the remaining ACC programs time to get their houses in order for what is coming. The major shift in college athletics is on the way. There is literally nobody that thinks realignment is over. And a "super league" is very possible. The House settlement plays a role here.

FSU and Clemson want to be seen as good partners when this realignment happens. Ongoing litigation only hampers them. And the cost is enormous. Especially if they lose.

There is a middle ground for all parties here. I think it makes sense to explore that. Of course stupidity and arrogance could get in the way of common sense.

FSU/Clemson are getting some of what they want with a new deal. More revenue, shorter term on the GOR, and stopping the ongoing costs to lawyers for a fight they may not win. The ACC does not want to continue this fight either. The PR surrounding the league is hurting the brand. Moving on is in the best interests of all. Then be ready for the next realignment.

So they win in 2026 and are now available. Who wants them and at what revenue share? Even if they escape the GOR there is likely an exit fee to leave the league. A new deal to 2030 is a good thing for all.

I doubt that the ACC decides who gets into the FBS playoffs. Prove me wrong. I have read the ACC will get two teams in, max.

calumnus said:

---

6956bear said:

---

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

BearSD said:

---

This part is the key. From the Dellenger article:

Quote:

---

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league's grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

---

---

I agree with that. That is HUGE if it gets shortened to 2030. That would coeincide with a Big 10 and a Big 12 re-negotiation. The big 12 troll farm on reddit and twitter has every convinced that ACC will fall apart and they will have the pick of the litter. If the GoR gets shortened, this will combat that significantly.

Who is to say that the leftovers from the ACC cannot do the poaching at that point? If we don't get to the Big 10, then we pick off Utah, Arizona State, and some other valuable Big 12 properties. It might be more desirable because we can stick with the academic elites and have a chance to win this league once in a while (long shot, but better shot than winning the Big 10)

All the more important to have good leadership at the ACC conference level and also our school AD level to help us navigate these choppy waters ahead.

---

This IMO is the key to the deal. The extra money of course helps, but the presumed new deal would end when the B1G and Big 12 does as well. If major realignment is happening (I believe it is) then you want to be able to move with having the GOR hanging around your neck.

ESPN and the conferences also would like to keep GORs as part of any ongoing contracts. While it seems that the GOR may be "iron clad" one never knows how the courts will decide to interpret things. And it costs everybody money to pursue legal outcomes. I do not think ESPN wants this to end up in court.

A negotiated agreement ending the lawsuit is in everyones self interest here. I expect it is likely to occur. Maybe not in this current form but something similar. Compromise makes sense for all.

---

So FSU and Clemson will sign a new GORs and two years from now sue to get out of it and the ACC will cave? What makes this more bonding than the last one?

---

If FSU and Clemson get a GOR that ends in 2030 and an agreement to share revenue based on ratings, filing a lawsuit in 2026 to get out of the ACC wouldn't make any sense. First, the lawsuit would take a couple of years to lititgate so even if they win, they only leave one, maybe two years early? And what does that one year buy them? Would the Big Ten be looking to add more teams at that point? Probably not.

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

BearSD said:

---

This part is the key. From the Dellenger article:

Quote:

---

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league's grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

---

---

I agree with that. That is HUGE if it gets shortened to 2030. That would coeincide with a Big 10 and a Big 12 re-negotiation. The big 12 troll farm on reddit and twitter has every convinced that ACC will fall apart and they will have the pick of the litter. If the GoR gets shortened, this will combat that significantly.

Who is to say that the leftovers from the ACC cannot do the poaching at that point? If we don't get to the Big 10, then we pick off Utah, Arizona State, and some other valuable Big 12 properties. It might be more desirable because we can stick with the academic elites and have a chance to win this league once in a while (long shot, but better shot than winning the Big 10)

All the more important to have good leadership at the ACC conference level and also our school AD level to help us navigate these choppy waters ahead.

---

This is kind of what I've been thinking will happen at the next big realignment: B1G and SEC take who they want, then the ACC poaches what they want from the Big 12 and elsewhere. Despite the boasting and bleating from the Big 12 folks on social media, the reality is that the ACC has a better deal and is in a stronger position as long as it exists as a league. The way you know this is that if almost any school in the Big 12 got an offer from the ACC, they would likely jump at it.

If the ends of the GORs match up in the same year (2030) then the Big 12 gets no advantage from a potential ACC breakup; the field is wide open for everyone.

sycasey said:

---

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

BearSD said:

---

This part is the key. From the Dellenger article:

Quote:

---

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league's grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

---

---

I agree with that. That is HUGE if it gets shortened to 2030. That would coeincide with a Big 10 and a Big 12 re-negotiation. The big 12 troll farm on reddit and twitter has every convinced that ACC will fall apart and they will have the pick of the litter. If the GoR gets shortened, this will combat that significantly.

Who is to say that the leftovers from the ACC cannot do the poaching at that point? If we don't get to the Big 10, then we pick off Utah, Arizona State, and some other valuable Big 12 properties. It might be more desirable because we can stick with the academic elites and have a chance to win this league once in a while (long shot, but better shot than winning the Big 10)

All the more important to have good leadership at the ACC conference level and also our school AD level to help us navigate these choppy waters ahead.

---

This is kind of what I've been thinking will happen at the next big realignment: B1G and SEC take who they want, then the ACC poaches what they want from the Big 12 and elsewhere. Despite the boasting and bleating from the Big 12 folks on social media, the reality is that the ACC has a better deal and is in a stronger position as long as it exists as a league. The way you know this is that if almost any school in the Big 12 got an offer from the ACC, they would likely jump at it.

If the ends of the GORs match up in the same year (2030) then the Big 12 gets no advantage from a potential ACC breakup; the field is wide open for everyone.

---

Agree. That is why you are reading stories about the Big 12 considering using PE money to pay for FSU and Clemson to join them sooner than 2030. The SEC and B1G really are not considering either right now.

If Clemson and FSU win the lawsuit it changes everything. ESPN would prefer to not have to defend the GORs in court. Losing that battle would be a catastrophe for them and the ACC. But that will take time and be expensive and what does FSU and Clemson gain if they lose.

But if 2030 is the next big realignment then shortening the GOR, staying put and ending the lawsuits is beneficial not only to FSU and Clemson but others in the ACC as well. Will be interesting as ESPN has an opt in/out date coming this February. So things should move quickly if there is to be a new negotiated deal.

sycasey said:

---

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

BearSD said:

---

This part is the key. From the Dellenger article:

Quote:

---

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league's grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

---

---

I agree with that. That is HUGE if it gets shortened to 2030. That would coeincide with a Big 10 and a Big 12 re-negotiation. The big 12 troll farm on reddit and twitter has every convinced that ACC will fall apart and they will have the pick of the litter. If the GoR gets shortened, this will combat that significantly.

Who is to say that the leftovers from the ACC cannot do the poaching at that point? If we don't get to the Big 10, then we pick off Utah, Arizona State, and some other valuable Big 12 properties. It might be more desirable because we can stick with the academic elites and have a chance to win this league once in a while (long shot, but better shot than winning the Big 10)

All the more important to have good leadership at the ACC conference level and also our school AD level to help us navigate these choppy waters ahead.

---

This is kind of what I've been thinking will happen at the next big realignment: B1G and SEC take who they want, then the ACC poaches what they want from the Big 12 and elsewhere. Despite the boasting and bleating from the Big 12 folks on social media, the reality is that the ACC has a better deal and is in a stronger position as long as it exists as a league. The way you know this is that if almost any school in the Big 12 got an offer from the ACC, they would likely jump at it.

If the ends of the GORs match up in the same year (2030) then the Big 12 gets no advantage from a potential ACC breakup; the field is wide open for everyone.

---

The smart play would be for the most valuable teams in each conference to leave and form a new one, but realistically that may be too complicated to pull off. The top schools would have to be smart enough to foresee this and hire conultants to figure out which combination of teams would maximize revenue with some semblance of geogrpahic balance.

Shortening the deal to 2030 - wouldn't that mean Cal never gets a full share of the current TV deal? Doesn't seem like such a good deal for us if so.

berserkeley said:

---

calumnus said:

---

6956bear said:

---

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

BearSD said:

---

This part is the key. From the Dellenger article:

Quote:

---

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league's grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

---

---

I agree with that. That is HUGE if it gets shortened to 2030. That would coeincide with a Big 10 and a Big 12 re-negotiation. The big 12 troll farm on reddit and twitter has every convinced that ACC will fall apart and they will have the pick of the litter. If the GoR gets shortened, this will combat that significantly.

Who is to say that the leftovers from the ACC cannot do the poaching at that point? If we don't get to the Big 10, then we pick off Utah, Arizona State, and some other valuable Big 12 properties. It might be more desirable because we can stick with the academic elites and have a chance to win this league once in a while (long shot, but better shot than winning the Big 10)

All the more important to have good leadership at the ACC conference level and also our school AD level to help us navigate these choppy waters ahead.

---

This IMO is the key to the deal. The extra money of course helps, but the presumed new deal would end when the B1G and Big 12 does as well. If major realignment is happening (I believe it is) then you want to be able to move with having the GOR hanging around your neck.

ESPN and the conferences also would like to keep GORs as part of any ongoing contracts. While it seems that the GOR may be "iron clad" one never knows how the courts will decide to interpret things. And it costs everybody money to pursue legal outcomes. I do not think ESPN wants this to end up in court.

A negotiated agreement ending the lawsuit is in everyones self interest here. I expect it is likely to occur. Maybe not in this current form but something similar. Compromise makes sense for all.

---

So FSU and Clemson will sign a new GORs and two years from now sue to get out of it and the ACC will cave? What makes this more bonding than the last one?

---

If FSU and Clemson get a GOR that ends in 2030 and an agreement to share revenue based on ratings, filing a lawsuit in 2026 to get out of the ACC wouldn't make any sense. First, the lawsuit would take a couple of years to lititgate so even if they win, they only leave one, maybe two years early? And what does that one year buy them? Would the Big Ten be looking to add more teams at that point? Probably not.

---

They could file a lawsuit in 2025, hoping to get out in 2026, four more years early, or at least continue to improve their financial position vis a vis the rest of the league as this lawsuit did. If this settlement goes through, it will show that suing the league has positive financial returns, even if you do not have a case.

The other question is whether there will be enough votes to approve it. I wonder how Cal, Stanford and SMU will vote?

scibear said:

---

Shortening the deal to 2030 - wouldn't that mean Cal never gets a full share of the current TV deal? Doesn't seem like such a good deal for us if so.

---

Depends on the terms of the new agreement.

calumnus said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

calumnus said:

---

6956bear said:

---

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

BearSD said:

---

This part is the key. From the Dellenger article:

Quote:

---

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league's grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

---

---

I agree with that. That is HUGE if it gets shortened to 2030. That would coeincide with a Big 10 and a Big 12 re-negotiation. The big 12 troll farm on reddit and twitter has every convinced that ACC will fall apart and they will have the pick of the litter. If the GoR gets shortened, this will combat that significantly.

Who is to say that the leftovers from the ACC cannot do the poaching at that point? If we don't get to the Big 10, then we pick off Utah, Arizona State, and some other valuable Big 12 properties. It might be more desirable because we can stick with the academic elites and have a chance to win this league once in a while (long shot, but better shot than winning the Big 10)

All the more important to have good leadership at the ACC conference level and also our school AD level to help us navigate these choppy waters ahead.

---

This IMO is the key to the deal. The extra money of course helps, but the presumed new deal would end when the B1G and Big 12 does as well. If major realignment is happening (I believe it is) then you want to be able to move with having the GOR hanging around your neck.

ESPN and the conferences also would like to keep GORs as part of any ongoing contracts. While it seems that the GOR may be "iron clad" one never knows how the courts will decide to interpret things. And it costs everybody money to pursue legal outcomes. I do not think ESPN wants this to end up in court.

A negotiated agreement ending the lawsuit is in everyones self interest here. I expect it is likely to occur. Maybe not in this current form but something similar. Compromise makes sense for all.

---

So FSU and Clemson will sign a new GORs and two years from now sue to get out of it and the ACC will cave? What makes this more bonding than the last one?

---

If FSU and Clemson get a GOR that ends in 2030 and an agreement to share revenue based on ratings, filing a lawsuit in 2026 to get out of the ACC wouldn't make any sense. First, the lawsuit would take a couple of years to lititgate so even if they win, they only leave one, maybe two years early? And what does that one year buy them? Would the Big Ten be looking to add more teams at that point? Probably not.

---

They could file a lawsuit in 2025, hoping to get out in 2026, four more years early, or at least continue to improve their financial position vis a vis the rest of the league as this lawsuit did. If this settlement goes through, it will show that suing the league has positive financial returns, even if you do not have a case.

The other question is whether there will be enough votes to approve it. I wonder how Cal, Stanford and SMU will vote?

---

and then appeal takes us to 2026, they will start at 2027, while paying some sort of exit fee most likely, and double digit millions in legal fees

its in fsu and clemson's best interest to shorten it to 2030. or maybr 2029 to get a head start on negotiations. thats what the b12 did to the p12. they took all of fox's money and all of a sudden they dont have $ to pay calford because they now have to pay cincy, houston, byu

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

calumnus said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

calumnus said:

---

6956bear said:

---

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

BearSD said:

---

This part is the key. From the Dellenger article:

Quote:

---

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league's grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

---

---

I agree with that. That is HUGE if it gets shortened to 2030. That would coeincide with a Big 10 and a Big 12 re-negotiation. The big 12 troll farm on reddit and twitter has every convinced that ACC will fall apart and they will have the pick of the litter. If the GoR gets shortened, this will combat that significantly.

Who is to say that the leftovers from the ACC cannot do the poaching at that point? If we don't get to the Big 10, then we pick off Utah, Arizona State, and some other valuable Big 12 properties. It might be more desirable because we can stick with the academic elites and have a chance to win this league once in a while (long shot, but better shot than winning the Big 10)

All the more important to have good leadership at the ACC conference level and also our school AD level to help us navigate these choppy waters ahead.

---

This IMO is the key to the deal. The extra money of course helps, but the presumed new deal would end when the B1G and Big 12 does as well. If major realignment is happening (I believe it is) then you want to be able to move with having the GOR hanging around your neck.

ESPN and the conferences also would like to keep GORs as part of any ongoing contracts. While it seems that the GOR may be "iron clad" one never knows how the courts will decide to interpret things. And it costs everybody money to pursue legal outcomes. I do not think ESPN wants this to end up in court.

A negotiated agreement ending the lawsuit is in everyones self interest here. I expect it is likely to occur. Maybe not in this current form but something similar. Compromise makes sense for all.

---

So FSU and Clemson will sign a new GORs and two years from now sue to get out of it and the ACC will cave? What makes this more bonding than the last one?

---

If FSU and Clemson get a GOR that ends in 2030 and an agreement to share revenue based on ratings, filing a lawsuit in 2026 to get out of the ACC wouldn't make any sense. First, the lawsuit would take a couple of years to lititgate so even if they win, they only leave one, maybe two years early? And what does that one year buy them? Would the Big Ten be looking to add more teams at that point? Probably not.

---

They could file a lawsuit in 2025, hoping to get out in 2026, four more years early, or at least continue to improve their financial position vis a vis the rest of the league as this lawsuit did. If this settlement goes through, it will show that suing the league has positive financial returns, even if you do not have a case.

The other question is whether there will be enough votes to approve it. I wonder how Cal, Stanford and SMU will vote?

---

and then appeal takes us to 2026, they will start at 2027, while paying some sort of exit fee most likely, and double digit millions in legal fees

its in fsu and clemson's best interest to shorten it to 2030. or maybr 2029 to get a head start on negotiations. thats what the b12 did to the p12. they took all of fox's money and all of a sudden they dont have $ to pay calford because they now have to pay cincy, houston, byu

---

They filed this lawsuit in December and less than a year later without any positive rulings in their favor may get a very positive settlement from the ACC worth hundreds of times what they spent. Why wouldn't they try that again? It worked the first time. If they can keep suing and keep improving their position or finally be released? They are not going to be happy in the ACC at any price.

calumnus said:

---

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

calumnus said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

calumnus said:

---

6956bear said:

---

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

BearSD said:

---

This part is the key. From the Dellenger article:

Quote:

---

Along with the new revenue structure, leaders are examining amending the length of the league's grant of rights, the binding agreement at the center of lawsuits from the Seminoles and Tigers. The ACC grant of rights, binding the schools together through 2036, would presumably be shortened.

---

---

I agree with that. That is HUGE if it gets shortened to 2030. That would coeincide with a Big 10 and a Big 12 re-negotiation. The big 12 troll farm on reddit and twitter has every convinced that ACC will fall apart and they will have the pick of the litter. If the GoR gets shortened, this will combat that significantly.

Who is to say that the leftovers from the ACC cannot do the poaching at that point? If we don't get to the Big 10, then we pick off Utah, Arizona State, and some other valuable Big 12 properties. It might be more desirable because we can stick with the academic elites and have a chance to win this league once in a while (long shot, but better shot than winning the Big 10)

All the more important to have good leadership at the ACC conference level and also our school AD level to help us navigate these choppy waters ahead.

---

This IMO is the key to the deal. The extra money of course helps, but the presumed new deal would end when the B1G and Big 12 does as well. If major realignment is happening (I believe it is) then you want to be able to move with having the GOR hanging around your neck.

ESPN and the conferences also would like to keep GORs as part of any ongoing contracts. While it seems that the GOR may be "iron clad" one never knows how the courts will decide to interpret things. And it costs everybody money to pursue legal outcomes. I do not think ESPN wants this to end up in court.

A negotiated agreement ending the lawsuit is in everyones self interest here. I expect it is likely to occur. Maybe not in this current form but something similar. Compromise makes sense for all.

---

So FSU and Clemson will sign a new GORs and two years from now sue to get out of it and the ACC will cave? What makes this more bonding than the last one?

---

If FSU and Clemson get a GOR that ends in 2030 and an agreement to share revenue based on ratings, filing a lawsuit in 2026 to get out of the ACC wouldn't make any sense. First, the lawsuit would take a couple of years to lititgate so even if they win, they only leave one, maybe two years early? And what does that one year buy them? Would the Big Ten be looking to add more teams at that point? Probably not.

---

They could file a lawsuit in 2025, hoping to get out in 2026, four more years early, or at least continue to improve their financial position vis a vis the rest of the league as this lawsuit did. If this settlement goes through, it will show that suing the league has positive financial returns, even if you do not have a case.

The other question is whether there will be enough votes to approve it. I wonder how Cal, Stanford and SMU will vote?

---

and then appeal takes us to 2026, they will start at 2027, while paying some sort of exit fee most likely, and double digit millions in legal fees

its in fsu and clemson's best interest to shorten it to 2030. or maybr 2029 to get a head start on negotiations. thats what the b12 did to the p12. they took all of fox's money and all of a sudden they dont have $ to pay calford because they now have to pay cincy, houston, byu

---

They filed this lawsuit in December and less than a year later without any positive rulings in their favor may get a very positive settlement from the ACC worth hundreds of times what they spent. Why wouldn't they try that again? It worked the first time. If they can keep suing and keep improving their position or finally be released? They are not going to be happy in the ACC at any price.

---

First, all of this may be a non-story. As part of the litigation, FSU/Clemson have to enter into mediation with the ACC. Everything that's being reported sounds like it's just part of the mandatory mediation talks and not necessarily that there's movement toward an agreement.

Second, I have to imagine that if the ACC makes concessions in exchange for FSU and Clemson dropping the lawsuit and then they file a laswuit a year later for the same claims, then it would nullify any concessions made.

Third, FSU filed the lawsuit 9 months ago and they are no where near a judgment yet so FSU should not expect that if they file a lawsuit in one year then they'd be out the following year. They should expect it to take more than a year before they get a lower court judgment and then they have to wait out the appeals because if they leave first and then lose the appeal they'd be financially ruined.

Also, 2025 is 3 months away and it'll probably take at least that long to get any agreement reach and approved. I don't see them getting a settlement and then walking into cour the next day and re-filing the lawsuit again. There isn't a timeline that gets them out much before 2030 if they reach an agreement here.